BIL Balancing Problem

[paulg]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=skj7hkt3dkqt652cj]133|100|Scoring: IMP

(1♣) - Pass - (Pass) - ?[/hv]

For my BIL teaching sessions I often generate hands based on a theme and see how they cope. This is from the balancing session and there was debate about the best call.

 

I said I'd ask you for a second opinion!

 

Paul

[hrothgar]

I expect this to boil down to a debate between 2♦ and double.

 

I think that double is quite attractive at MP, particularly if your partner can handle a Moysian well. In the BIL, playing IMPs, I'll bid 2♦

[han]

I wouldn't expect any debate about double but there you have it, I'm wrong again.

 

The only options are 1D and 2D in my opinion and this is a minimum 2D for me.

[gwnn]

2♦. Gets most of my hand off my chest. I'd rather play diamonds than a moysian on this hand and we probably don't have a 5-3 major fit. Partner will bid 3NT with a penalty pass, and he'll like my diamonds.

[655321]

Agree with 2♦

[skjaeran]

I wouldn't expect any debate about double but there you have it, I'm wrong again.

 

The only options are 1D and 2D in my opinion and this is a minimum 2D for me.

Agree with Han.

[pclayton]

Double? To find a 4-3 when pard forgot to overcall ?

 

1♦ for me.

[hrothgar]

Double? To find a 4-3 when pard forgot to overcall ?

 

1♦ for me.

This is precisely the type of hand where a Moysian works very well.

 

You'll have your choice of a couple lines of play:

 

1. Ruffing clubs in the short hand

2. Establishing Diamonds and pulling trump

 

As I mentioned originally, this is IMPs.

I'm not all that concerned about which partial scores better.

I'm bidding 2♦

 

If this were MP, I might very well double

[brianshark]

I bid 1♦. I won't shoot a pard who chooses 2♦. Anything else is overthinking.

[helene_t]

I voted 1♦ but not sure what the requirements should be for 2♦. I would prefer slightly more than this I think but I might be wrong.

 

What is the problem with 1♦? Is it that we could get stolen from if opps bid 2M or 3♣ before we get the chance of bidding 2♦ (or doubling 2♣)?

[jtfanclub]

Double? To find a 4-3 when pard forgot to overcall ?

 

1♦ for me.

Because your pard always X's with 4-3 in the majors regardless of count?

 

The two cases I think most likely are...

 

1) Partner will be considering 3NT, or

2) We're going to be on defense, not necessarily against clubs.

 

In both cases, I think I'd rather tell my partner about the support for three suits and short clubs than tell him about the diamonds.

 

The problem with 1♦ is that we miss 3NT when it's right.

[Cascade]

Intermediate jumps are normal for fourth seat.

[Guest Jlall]

Easy 1D I would think...

[Mbodell]

I have adjusted 4th seat jump bidding, but balancing jump bids are similar to direct jump bids (AFAIK) in my regular partnerships. So I'd feel too heavy for a 2♦ response with my nice hand and bid 1♦. My 3 card both majors provide some support to not worrying as much about opponents having 4M.

 

I could make game in 5♦ or 3NT opposite the right passed hand and could see winning a part score battle in 3♦ or 2M or setting the opponents in 3M.

[Echognome]

2♦ for me (and I'm presuming this intermediate). Lots of factors here as partner didn't have an overcall of 1♣. About the most I expect over there is a weak NT. Opposite that, 3N will probably have some play and partner can judge our hand type. Opposite any other hand (other than some unsuitable strong 3-suiter), I doubt we want to go anywhere and 2♦ is at least somewhat preemptive for them finding another fit.

[cherdano]

I would bid 1♦, I don't see us missing game over that.

[inquiry]

I am going to bid 2♦. This is, at best, a minimum 2♦ bid, but 1♦ does nothing to inhibit the opponents bidding. If I bid 1♦ here, LHO can bid 1 major to show long club and the major, or can easily rebid 2♣ with great club suit, or even jump to 3♣. Over 2♦, he can still bid 2 Major to show the same hand, but at considerable more risk, and the difference between 2♣ and 3♣ jump is now gone. If he wants to jump he has to go higher still.

 

So, for me, the jump is worth it, becuase it describes the hand (albeit this is a minimum) and it makes it harder on the opponents to continue effectively. And should partner bid a major over this jump, well, I then really love my hand. If i double and partner bids a simple major, or even a jump in a major, I will not be so in love with my hand, and the continuation will be less clear. So it makes my futher bidding simplier too.

[Guest Jlall]

Reasons I don't like 2D:

 

- We could miss a major suit fit and play in a very inferior diamond fit.

- Our suit is rather weak for a 2D bid.

 

Reasons I like 1D:

 

- I don't see anything bad happening over this. If partner bids a major I can raise. If he bids NT I can go back to diamonds. If he makes a stronger bid we can get to game. If the opps bid clubs I can now double and have described my hand very well (having failed to doubled the first time).

 

I do not think this hand is understrength or overstrength for 2D in terms of playing strength. I do think it is misdescriptive on suit quality and playability elsewhere. I mean obviously if people had K sixth they would never bid 2D, or if they had 4M 6D they would not usually bid 2D. To me this is a less extreme case of both. I do not think 1D denies a hand with the playing strength required for 2D though.

 

The one good thing I see about 2D is that it preempts clubs better but I still don't think that makes up for the downsides of 2D.

[pclayton]

Double? To find a 4-3 when pard forgot to overcall ?

 

1♦ for me.

This is precisely the type of hand where a Moysian works very well.

 

You'll have your choice of a couple lines of play:

 

1. Ruffing clubs in the short hand

2. Establishing Diamonds and pulling trump

 

As I mentioned originally, this is IMPs.

I'm not all that concerned about which partial scores better.

I'm bidding 2♦

 

If this were MP, I might very well double

1. Ruffing clubs in the short hand

 

Hopefully not with our honors

 

2. Establishing Diamonds and pulling trump

 

Hopefully we have a late entry and we haven't lost control in the meantime.

 

As I mentioned originally, this is IMPs.

I'm not all that concerned about which partial scores better.

 

Right - that's a good reason to play diamonds.

[Impact]

2D for many of the reasons given including it shows the long suit and because I play 1D artificial here in line with principles from the Blue Team of cheaper minor as intermediate (say 12-15 guideline) takeout in the balancing seat...

 

For 3NT I show what I have - and the issue for any other game is either Moyse (as partner declined to overcall in M at 1-level) and requires very good intermediates/lesser honours.

 

If I double I will not get to D, but if I bid D I might get to M when it is right....

regards

[paulg]

For my BIL teaching sessions I often generate hands based on a theme and see how they cope.

But sometimes it turns into how well I can cope!

 

I typically generate 64 hands and then chose 12 that seem appropriate, but I do not examine the hands too closely. When this hand popped up I had most of the thoughts expressed in these posts but I am pleased to see that it is as unclear as I imagined.

 

I have not seen a debate-ending argument for either call. There are bad things that can happen to 1♦, specifically a 3♣ rebid that could make it difficult for partner to bid 3NT, but this will be rare. Finding a 5-3 fit might also be rare though. I would definitely like a better suit for 2♦.

 

However I'd probably bid 2♦ at the table, especially as we overcall fairly aggressively. Not with huge confidence that it was right though.

 

Paul

[whereagles]

Easy 2♦. If pard, who prolly has some hcps, couldn't bid a major over 1♦, he probably won't have 5 of them. So 2♦, showing an intermediate hand, is just about ideal.

[ochinko]

With the same strength and distribution I'd bid 2♦ if my majors were weaker, but as they both contain 2 high cards, I like 1♦ more. Double is not a consideration.